What's key about it is that all of that stuff has been dropped into the UAs as well -- and what they were checking was the level of popularity, because 80% popularity is their baseline.
In my prior response, I did skip a point that is probably also part of the underlying question: will I buy the books?
The answer is I will probably buy the DMG, and I might buy the PHB. I am unlikely to buy the MM unless they do an overhaul that is more in line with what I've had to do for my table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
What kid of citation would satisfy you? I personally do not know anyone that has. It is all anecdotal on this forum when it come to this type of discussion.
You made a pretty confident assertion, so I assumed you had a non-rectal source of some kind. If what you meant was "nobody I know has looked at Dragonlance" that's fine, but also very far from a "vast majority."
What's key about it is that all of that stuff has been dropped into the UAs as well -- and what they were checking was the level of popularity, because 80% popularity is their baseline.
In my prior response, I did skip a point that is probably also part of the underlying question: will I buy the books?
The answer is I will probably buy the DMG, and I might buy the PHB. I am unlikely to buy the MM unless they do an overhaul that is more in line with what I've had to do for my table.
I'm guessing the MM overhaul will be more in line with MPMM, or the even more recent monster design like Bigby's and Morte's, if that helps.
What kid of citation would satisfy you? I personally do not know anyone that has. It is all anecdotal on this forum when it come to this type of discussion.
You made a pretty confident assertion, so I assumed you had a non-rectal source of some kind. If what you meant was "nobody I know has looked at Dragonlance" that's fine, but also very far from a "vast majority."
That was not me, I do agree with the statement, and my question to you still stands. Maybe the original poster will explain what they meant and not how you interpreted the post.
Neither side of this argument can be proven to the point of the other side conceding.
What's key about it is that all of that stuff has been dropped into the UAs as well -- and what they were checking was the level of popularity, because 80% popularity is their baseline.
In my prior response, I did skip a point that is probably also part of the underlying question: will I buy the books?
The answer is I will probably buy the DMG, and I might buy the PHB. I am unlikely to buy the MM unless they do an overhaul that is more in line with what I've had to do for my table.
I'm guessing the MM overhaul will be more in line with MPMM, or the even more recent monster design like Bigby's and Morte's, if that helps.
yeah, I would expect that as well, but I don't use published monsters (and Yurei kinda gave me crap for it in another thread, lol). If they change the stat blocks significantly, or proffer some new larger scale system, I would probably have to (mechanics nerd), but if it is mostly the same basis, then there's not really a reason for me to do so.
Ain't nothing against them, lol -- I don't have a need for it (in part because of how much lore they work into the monsters that is antithetical to my setting).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
The vast majority have not even looked at the new Dragonlance stuff.
[citation needed]
The fact that every new release since then has included level 1 feats in background suggests that it hasn't hurt their business model any.
What kind of citation would satisfy you? I personally do not know anyone that has. It is all anecdotal on this forum when it come to this type of discussion.
Oddly enough, the citation isn't the key point. But the contextual reason for the citation is to establish the non-anecdotal basis for such a statement. Subtextually, there is more going on, because of the usual forum stuff since some folks just hate everything 5e and WotC and post to steal joy and drop disruptive,cherry picked strawman arguments.
The new Dragonlance has not been a runaway best seller. The setting does not appear to appeal to the majority of players. However, I will note that it was used as an example of how certain concepts are not widely known, and in that case it fails miserably as an example as the same concepts are in multiple other sources that have been extremely popular (such as the others mentioned prior to that).
However, Dragonlance is still a popular world, like Strahd and Eberron are, and while they may not have the same marketshare as Forgotten Realms, they were never meant to have that level of popularity. Those who did buy it are very fond of it, and enjoy it -- and the same features are going to end up here as part of DDB, anyway, so the whole point raised is moot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
The vast majority have not even looked at the new Dragonlance stuff.
[citation needed]
The fact that every new release since then has included level 1 feats in background suggests that it hasn't hurt their business model any.
What kind of citation would satisfy you? I personally do not know anyone that has. It is all anecdotal on this forum when it come to this type of discussion.
Oddly enough, the citation isn't the key point. But the contextual reason for the citation is to establish the non-anecdotal basis for such a statement. Subtextually, there is more going on, because of the usual forum stuff since some folks just hate everything 5e and WotC and post to steal joy and drop disruptive,cherry picked strawman arguments.
The new Dragonlance has not been a runaway best seller. The setting does not appear to appeal to the majority of players. However, I will note that it was used as an example of how certain concepts are not widely known, and in that case it fails miserably as an example as the same concepts are in multiple other sources that have been extremely popular (such as the others mentioned prior to that).
However, Dragonlance is still a popular world, like Strahd and Eberron are, and while they may not have the same marketshare as Forgotten Realms, they were never meant to have that level of popularity. Those who did buy it are very fond of it, and enjoy it -- and the same features are going to end up here as part of DDB, anyway, so the whole point raised is moot.
I pose the same question to you, what citation would satisfy you, and what citation can you provide that would satisfy those of us that disagree.
A little hyperbole on an internet forum shouldn't require citations.
[Citation Needed], written in brackets like that, is a reference to the same formatting being used on Wikipedia to flag potentially dubious or inflammatory claims as warranting additional review. It is a common internet mechanism of rolling your eyes at a hyperbolic claim, usually one made by someone who is very clearly trolling. It is not an actual request for a citation - it is a way of dismissing someone else’s flippant and hyperbolic comment for which they’ve offered no evidence.
Folks should take the flippant dismissal of an equally flippant remark for what it is—a complete non-issue and not an invitation for more—and perhaps move back to the actual substance of the thread?
[Citation Needed], written in brackets like that, is a reference to the same formatting being used on Wikipedia to flag potentially dubious or inflammatory claims as warranting additional review. It is a common internet mechanism of rolling your eyes at a hyperbolic claim, usually one made by someone who is very clearly trolling. It is not an actual request for a citation - it is a way of dismissing someone else’s flippant and hyperbolic comment for which they’ve offered no evidence.
Folks should take the flippant dismissal of an equally flippant remark for what it is—a complete non-issue and not an invitation for more—and perhaps move back to the actual substance of the thread?
Lol, while I agree, I can not pass on the low hanging fruit that Wikipedia is a reference for a standard 😄
The vast majority have not even looked at the new Dragonlance stuff.
[citation needed]
The fact that every new release since then has included level 1 feats in background suggests that it hasn't hurt their business model any.
What kind of citation would satisfy you? I personally do not know anyone that has. It is all anecdotal on this forum when it come to this type of discussion.
Oddly enough, the citation isn't the key point. But the contextual reason for the citation is to establish the non-anecdotal basis for such a statement. Subtextually, there is more going on, because of the usual forum stuff since some folks just hate everything 5e and WotC and post to steal joy and drop disruptive,cherry picked strawman arguments.
The new Dragonlance has not been a runaway best seller. The setting does not appear to appeal to the majority of players. However, I will note that it was used as an example of how certain concepts are not widely known, and in that case it fails miserably as an example as the same concepts are in multiple other sources that have been extremely popular (such as the others mentioned prior to that).
However, Dragonlance is still a popular world, like Strahd and Eberron are, and while they may not have the same marketshare as Forgotten Realms, they were never meant to have that level of popularity. Those who did buy it are very fond of it, and enjoy it -- and the same features are going to end up here as part of DDB, anyway, so the whole point raised is moot.
I pose the same question to you, what citation would satisfy you, and what citation can you provide that would satisfy those of us that disagree.
A little hyperbole on an internet forum shouldn't require citations.
Well, none, because I'm not invested enough to care about the topic. I don't particularly care if dragonlance is successful or not or its value or lack therefore as an example of how the new systems are being spread out.
As for citation that I can provide, go grab the quarterly investor report.
It is an internet forum. Hyperbole has been challenged routinely since BBs -- the 1980's, pre-internet. USenet was famous for it.
As is something akin to saying "how do you know it is hyperbole?". There's been no evidence of it being hyperbole, that's a subjective reading. Uness the poster comes back and says "it's hyperbole", then we are required under good faith principles to accept it as a statement. That's basic form.
If you don't agree that's fine. Your call. I'm not going to attempt to sway you either way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
That was not me, I do agree with the statement, and my question to you still stands. Maybe the original poster will explain what they meant and not how you interpreted the post.
Neither side of this argument can be proven to the point of the other side conceding.
That's not how debate works though; the person making an assertion (in this case JustaFarmer, sorry about that) needs to support it. I can't just say "The moon's core is made of cheese, you have to go prove me wrong if you don't agree, and if you don't I'm correct."
As for what citation would satisfy me - something that indicates the opinion of the "vast majority." That was the claim, after all, so that should be obvious.
Oddly enough, the citation isn't the key point. But the contextual reason for the citation is to establish the non-anecdotal basis for such a statement. Subtextually, there is more going on, because of the usual forum stuff since some folks just hate everything 5e and WotC and post to steal joy and drop disruptive,cherry picked strawman arguments.
The new Dragonlance has not been a runaway best seller. The setting does not appear to appeal to the majority of players. However, I will note that it was used as an example of how certain concepts are not widely known, and in that case it fails miserably as an example as the same concepts are in multiple other sources that have been extremely popular (such as the others mentioned prior to that).
However, Dragonlance is still a popular world, like Strahd and Eberron are, and while they may not have the same marketshare as Forgotten Realms, they were never meant to have that level of popularity. Those who did buy it are very fond of it, and enjoy it -- and the same features are going to end up here as part of DDB, anyway, so the whole point raised is moot.
I can't speak to Dragonlance sales (I couldn't find support for that claim either; their 10-Q doesn't go to that level of granularity obviously). But to reiterate, if there was massive distaste for things it pioneered like feats in backgrounds, they wouldn't have kept doing those things; it would be illogical on their part.
That was not me, I do agree with the statement, and my question to you still stands. Maybe the original poster will explain what they meant and not how you interpreted the post.
Neither side of this argument can be proven to the point of the other side conceding.
That's not how debate works though; the person making an assertion (in this case JustaFarmer, sorry about that) needs to support it. I can't just say "The moon's core is made of cheese, you have to go prove me wrong if you don't agree, and if you don't I'm correct."
As for what citation would satisfy me - something that indicates the opinion of the "vast majority." That was the claim, after all, so that should be obvious.
No worries on the confusion, but pointing out a problem without offering a solution is really a waste of time.
Being the internet and specifically a site that has passionate members and very different views on the current owners of the IP, if you're gonna call someone out I was just curious what data sets it would take to convince you. Like I said earlier I doubt anyone on either side is going to be convinced to change their mind. Thanks for all of the responses.
While I have no interest in Dragonlance, I am glad WotC published it for my friends that enjoy it.
The rational side of me says I'll wait a year or so to see how it goes. See if I can borrow a copy so I can read through it first. Judge how the wind blows - I really don't want to buy in and then find that in a couple of years there's a new edition on the shelves.
The more honest side recognises that I'll probably get it after three months.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to play D&D? Try the following resources first (each section withing vertical bars is a clickable link to find the resource).
The rational side of me says I'll wait a year or so to see how it goes. See if I can borrow a copy so I can read through it first. Judge how the wind blows - I really don't want to buy in and then find that in a couple of years there's a new edition on the shelves.
The more honest side recognises that I'll probably get it after three months.
Same, at least for the PHB. Much less interested in the new DMG or MM, particularly since I’m not a fan of several of the monster changes. Bought the current iterations of both on the last flash sale to try to make sure I don’t lose that material. Was really miffed that they took down VGtM and MtoF, particularly given they offered no replacement for all the lore in them.
The rational side of me says I'll wait a year or so to see how it goes. See if I can borrow a copy so I can read through it first. Judge how the wind blows - I really don't want to buy in and then find that in a couple of years there's a new edition on the shelves.
The more honest side recognises that I'll probably get it after three months.
Same, at least for the PHB. Much less interested in the new DMG or MM, particularly since I’m not a fan of several of the monster changes. Bought the current iterations of both on the last flash sale to try to make sure I don’t lose that material. Was really miffed that they took down VGtM and MtoF, particularly given they offered no replacement for all the lore in them.
Nice to hear, been tempted to buy when onsale but very happy with what they replaced. My collector habits are strong.
Same, at least for the PHB. Much less interested in the new DMG or MM, particularly since I’m not a fan of several of the monster changes. Bought the current iterations of both on the last flash sale to try to make sure I don’t lose that material. Was really miffed that they took down VGtM and MtoF, particularly given they offered no replacement for all the lore in them.
I definitely want more lore too. But not that lore. Orcs and Goliaths don't need to all be canonically ableist brutes, Lizardfolk don't need to all be sociopaths, Kenku don't need to be physically incapable of creativity etc.
Same, at least for the PHB. Much less interested in the new DMG or MM, particularly since I’m not a fan of several of the monster changes. Bought the current iterations of both on the last flash sale to try to make sure I don’t lose that material. Was really miffed that they took down VGtM and MtoF, particularly given they offered no replacement for all the lore in them.
I definitely want more lore too. But not that lore. Orcs and Goliaths don't need to all be canonically ableist brutes, Lizardfolk don't need to all be sociopaths, Kenku don't need to be physically incapable of creativity etc.
Kenku were significantly flawed, but imo most of the other lore is workable. Not every fictional culture presented in a fantasy setting needs to be a shining pillar of moral rectitude and civil equity. Plus I enjoy lore that indicates that some races are a bit more distinct than just “essentially human minds under another coat of paint”. Granted, it would probably help if it was presented in a setting book as opposed to something more universal; or at least they offered a few suggestions on areas to tweak. To be very clear, I’m not saying orc ever should be a dumb brute, but the presentation of a society formed in a harsh environment with a similarly harsh cultural trend is an invitation to explore all the possible facets of that, not a proscription to build everything in a single mold.
I am certain I will get the new releases, although I may treat it a bit like new technology/software releases where I wait a bit for things to settle first.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Much that once was is lost. Objects in Mirror Image are closer than they appear.
Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?
I'll probably jse a 1 dnd starter box if one is out by 2025 see if i prefer 5e ... I kind of want a name change though one d&d is a huge marketing buzz name to highlight the digital side that i won't be using
I am certain I will get the new releases, although I may treat it a bit like new technology/software releases where I wait a bit for things to settle first.
yes, how many "patches" break more than they fix! I'm not anti DND, I just haven't been impressed with the fixes. To be honest I have decades of official published material to get through before I even need to think about 1DND!
Caerwyn's response was awesome.
What's key about it is that all of that stuff has been dropped into the UAs as well -- and what they were checking was the level of popularity, because 80% popularity is their baseline.
In my prior response, I did skip a point that is probably also part of the underlying question: will I buy the books?
The answer is I will probably buy the DMG, and I might buy the PHB. I am unlikely to buy the MM unless they do an overhaul that is more in line with what I've had to do for my table.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You made a pretty confident assertion, so I assumed you had a non-rectal source of some kind. If what you meant was "nobody I know has looked at Dragonlance" that's fine, but also very far from a "vast majority."
I'm guessing the MM overhaul will be more in line with MPMM, or the even more recent monster design like Bigby's and Morte's, if that helps.
That was not me, I do agree with the statement, and my question to you still stands. Maybe the original poster will explain what they meant and not how you interpreted the post.
Neither side of this argument can be proven to the point of the other side conceding.
yeah, I would expect that as well, but I don't use published monsters (and Yurei kinda gave me crap for it in another thread, lol). If they change the stat blocks significantly, or proffer some new larger scale system, I would probably have to (mechanics nerd), but if it is mostly the same basis, then there's not really a reason for me to do so.
Ain't nothing against them, lol -- I don't have a need for it (in part because of how much lore they work into the monsters that is antithetical to my setting).
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Oddly enough, the citation isn't the key point. But the contextual reason for the citation is to establish the non-anecdotal basis for such a statement. Subtextually, there is more going on, because of the usual forum stuff since some folks just hate everything 5e and WotC and post to steal joy and drop disruptive,cherry picked strawman arguments.
The new Dragonlance has not been a runaway best seller. The setting does not appear to appeal to the majority of players. However, I will note that it was used as an example of how certain concepts are not widely known, and in that case it fails miserably as an example as the same concepts are in multiple other sources that have been extremely popular (such as the others mentioned prior to that).
However, Dragonlance is still a popular world, like Strahd and Eberron are, and while they may not have the same marketshare as Forgotten Realms, they were never meant to have that level of popularity. Those who did buy it are very fond of it, and enjoy it -- and the same features are going to end up here as part of DDB, anyway, so the whole point raised is moot.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I pose the same question to you, what citation would satisfy you, and what citation can you provide that would satisfy those of us that disagree.
A little hyperbole on an internet forum shouldn't require citations.
[Citation Needed], written in brackets like that, is a reference to the same formatting being used on Wikipedia to flag potentially dubious or inflammatory claims as warranting additional review. It is a common internet mechanism of rolling your eyes at a hyperbolic claim, usually one made by someone who is very clearly trolling. It is not an actual request for a citation - it is a way of dismissing someone else’s flippant and hyperbolic comment for which they’ve offered no evidence.
Folks should take the flippant dismissal of an equally flippant remark for what it is—a complete non-issue and not an invitation for more—and perhaps move back to the actual substance of the thread?
Lol, while I agree, I can not pass on the low hanging fruit that Wikipedia is a reference for a standard 😄
Well, none, because I'm not invested enough to care about the topic. I don't particularly care if dragonlance is successful or not or its value or lack therefore as an example of how the new systems are being spread out.
As for citation that I can provide, go grab the quarterly investor report.
It is an internet forum. Hyperbole has been challenged routinely since BBs -- the 1980's, pre-internet. USenet was famous for it.
As is something akin to saying "how do you know it is hyperbole?". There's been no evidence of it being hyperbole, that's a subjective reading. Uness the poster comes back and says "it's hyperbole", then we are required under good faith principles to accept it as a statement. That's basic form.
If you don't agree that's fine. Your call. I'm not going to attempt to sway you either way.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That's not how debate works though; the person making an assertion (in this case JustaFarmer, sorry about that) needs to support it. I can't just say "The moon's core is made of cheese, you have to go prove me wrong if you don't agree, and if you don't I'm correct."
As for what citation would satisfy me - something that indicates the opinion of the "vast majority." That was the claim, after all, so that should be obvious.
I can't speak to Dragonlance sales (I couldn't find support for that claim either; their 10-Q doesn't go to that level of granularity obviously). But to reiterate, if there was massive distaste for things it pioneered like feats in backgrounds, they wouldn't have kept doing those things; it would be illogical on their part.
No worries on the confusion, but pointing out a problem without offering a solution is really a waste of time.
Being the internet and specifically a site that has passionate members and very different views on the current owners of the IP, if you're gonna call someone out I was just curious what data sets it would take to convince you. Like I said earlier I doubt anyone on either side is going to be convinced to change their mind. Thanks for all of the responses.
While I have no interest in Dragonlance, I am glad WotC published it for my friends that enjoy it.
The rational side of me says I'll wait a year or so to see how it goes. See if I can borrow a copy so I can read through it first. Judge how the wind blows - I really don't want to buy in and then find that in a couple of years there's a new edition on the shelves.
The more honest side recognises that I'll probably get it after three months.
Want to play D&D? Try the following resources first (each section withing vertical bars is a clickable link to find the resource).
|The free Basic Rules.|
|Some free short adventures| and |some more here too.| |Here is a series of encounters, some of which link together form a mini-adventure|.
You've played a few games and now want to buy materials? |Here's my guide on what to buy next|.
Same, at least for the PHB. Much less interested in the new DMG or MM, particularly since I’m not a fan of several of the monster changes. Bought the current iterations of both on the last flash sale to try to make sure I don’t lose that material. Was really miffed that they took down VGtM and MtoF, particularly given they offered no replacement for all the lore in them.
Nice to hear, been tempted to buy when onsale but very happy with what they replaced. My collector habits are strong.
I didn't think "sweeping assertions should be supported to be credible" needed to be offered as a "solution" 🤨 It's sort of... blindingly obvious.
I definitely want more lore too. But not that lore. Orcs and Goliaths don't need to all be canonically ableist brutes, Lizardfolk don't need to all be sociopaths, Kenku don't need to be physically incapable of creativity etc.
Kenku were significantly flawed, but imo most of the other lore is workable. Not every fictional culture presented in a fantasy setting needs to be a shining pillar of moral rectitude and civil equity. Plus I enjoy lore that indicates that some races are a bit more distinct than just “essentially human minds under another coat of paint”. Granted, it would probably help if it was presented in a setting book as opposed to something more universal; or at least they offered a few suggestions on areas to tweak. To be very clear, I’m not saying orc ever should be a dumb brute, but the presentation of a society formed in a harsh environment with a similarly harsh cultural trend is an invitation to explore all the possible facets of that, not a proscription to build everything in a single mold.
I am certain I will get the new releases, although I may treat it a bit like new technology/software releases where I wait a bit for things to settle first.
Much that once was is lost.
Objects in Mirror Image are closer than they appear.
Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?
I'll probably jse a 1 dnd starter box if one is out by 2025 see if i prefer 5e ... I kind of want a name change though one d&d is a huge marketing buzz name to highlight the digital side that i won't be using
in a hole in the ground you notice a halfling
yes, how many "patches" break more than they fix! I'm not anti DND, I just haven't been impressed with the fixes. To be honest I have decades of official published material to get through before I even need to think about 1DND!